Even Michael Vaughan didn't quite seem sure what to make of England's win. A few moments after telling the press yesterday that "I never think the game's up", he conceded his side had been "dead and buried". Not long after explaining that the ball had been "skidding on" during the first innings, he declared that batting on Saturday - when he made 30 off 133 balls - had been tricky because the ball "seemed to be slow off the pitch". But somehow his contradictions were in tune with the spirit of a Test match which left the Spin unsure whether England have taken a step forward, or two steps forward after one step back, or three steps etc and so on.

Amazing wins - and make no mistake: this was amazing - can camouflage more mundane deficiencies. The facts are these: with about 40 minutes to go before tea on the third day, New Zealand were 85 for two. Daniel Flynn was not going to bat, but with the lead already 264 you did not sense he was a great loss. Quite simply, England were going to lose. That they ended up winning can be put down to the accuracy of Monty Panesar, the third-innings frailties of New Zealand, the heavy roller, the guts of Andrew Strauss and the urgency of Vaughan's running on the fourth morning. Well played England. Just don't pretend everything is hunky-dory.

Vaughan proudly pointed out that England have won three of their five Tests against New Zealand this year. True, but in each of those three games defeat was never more than a bad half-hour away. At Wellington, a first-day score of 136 for five could have proved terminal if New Zealand hadn't fed Tim Ambrose's square-cut. At Napier, it just needed one more wicket to turn four for three and 36 for four into a rout. At Old Trafford, New Zealand required someone - anyone! - to hang around for an extra half hour on Sunday. England's ability to dig themselves out of holes is to be applauded, but their tendency to be there in the first place is not. South Africa will not be so generous.

It's a measure of the lack of confidence in the middle order right now that when Kevin Pietersen crazily ran himself out yesterday with only 56 needed, anxious glances were exchanged - and with good reason. Ian Bell was a bungled dolly by Iain O'Brien away from a failure which might have cost him his place at Trent Bridge, while Paul Collingwood has never looked more ill at ease: when he reached 11 yesterday, he moved to 50 runs for the season in eight innings for Durham and England. He will be under real scrutiny in Nottingham.

The bowling, for all Panesar's brilliance on Sunday, is a concern too. At one stage during New Zealand's first innings, the England attack went nearly 50 overs without a bowler taking a wicket. Even the two run-outs in that period had as much to do with Kiwi doziness than England brilliance (although the continued sharpness in the gully of Alastair Cook is a genuine cause for excitement). More and more, the return of Andrew Flintoff as part of a five-man attack that can carry the wicket-taking waywardness of Jimmy Anderson and the youthful promise of Stuart Broad looks like the only hope of taking on Australia. And that is dependent on Flintoff actually scoring some runs.

You may feel that all this is to carp unnecessarily. But the Spin is desperately trying to fight another feeling right now. And that is this: sooner or later, England's big-name players will stop rescuing them. If that happens, things could get very ugly indeed.

The following is an extract from The Spin, Lawrence Booth's weekly cricket email